Introduction
Tourist decision making is a central concern of both tourism researchers and practitioners, with previous research in this area extensively examining the destination choice process and proposing a number of tourist decision-making models (Crompton and Ankomah 1993; Woodside and Lysonski 1989). Research has also recognized other contributing factors and incorporated them into tourist decision-making behavior, including attitudes (Um and Crompton 1990), tourist characteristics (Beerli and Martín 2004; Hugstad, Taylor, and Bruce 1987), and other psychological factors (Pizam 2004; Snepenger 1987). Perceived risks have been of particular interest to some researchers and recognized as a fundamental concept in consumer behavior, with
…show more content…
In addition to these risks factors, there are five major risks that have been identified specifically in regards to tourism: terrorism, war, and political instability (Richter 2003; Sönmez and Graefe 1998a); health concerns (Richter 2003); crime (Dimanche and Lepetic 1999); and the risks associated with cultural and language differences (Basala and Klenosky 2001; Mitchell and Vassos 1997). Previous research has confirmed that perceptions of risks and safety can directly influence tourist destination choice as well as their propensity to visit or avoid certain destinations, particularly risksy areas (Sönmez and Graefe 1998a, 1998b). Accordingly, tourist perceived risks has been a focal point for researchers not only as a basis for tourist segmentation (Dolnicar 2005; Roehl and Fesenmaier 1992) but also due to its supposed influence on tourist decision making and/or travel intentions (Floyd 2004; Fuchs and Reichel 2006a, 2006b; Sönmez and Graefe 1998a) as well as subsequent protective behavior (Jonas et al. 2011). Previous tourism research exploring the relationship between tourists’ Knowledge and perceived risks has focused mainly on the influence of tourists’ past travel experiences or previous destination …show more content…
2005; Gursoy and McCleary 2004a). One such study is Klerck and Sweeney (2007), which examined the relationship between different types of knowledge and three risks elements (physical, psychological and performance) in the context of genetically modified foods. The results confirmed the view that there is a distinction between subjective and objective knowledge and the way each influences perceived risks. Klerk and Sweeney’s results further suggested that objective knowledge significantly reduced both performance and psychological risks, while when consumers lack objective information, subjective knowledge was likely to increase their physical perceived risks. Therefore we predict
In “The Pleasure of Eating” Berry suggests people do not take the time to know the facts of what they are eating. People now do not want to take time to cook a meal, but instead want a fast meal to eat quickly in a busy day.(Berry) Not only does this show less appreciation for healthy foods, but it is allowing processed foods to become popular and allowing them to sell more, damaging people's health. And this is exactly what the food industry wants. (E-1)The food industry's main concerns are not the quality of their foods, they do not care about the ways it affects our health, instead they worry about volume and price.(Berry)
External world such as people’s surroundings, parents’ expectation and market strategy pattern changes people’s thinking and behaviors. Malcolm Gladwell states that people’s behaviors may change under different situations and environments by arguing about how David Gunn oversees the subway system. After David Gunn make the subway to an orderly, clean and neat environment, crime in the subway decreased. Gladwell then concludes how character is unstable: “Character, then, isn’t what we think it is or, rather, what we want it to be. It isn’t a stable, easily identifiable set of closely related traits, and it only seems that way because of a glitch in the way our brains are organized.
The food industry doesn’t want the consumers to know what is in their food and how their food is made, because the industry is afraid that if the consumers know, that they will not want to eat their food anymore (FOOD,
The Non-GMO talk passionately about the effects GMOs have on human bodies and the environment. They do have valid statements such as, “In the absence of credible independent long-term feeding studies, the safety of GMOs is unknown” (Non-GMO Project). This is completely true. There have been no long-term studies on what GMOs can do to humans which can be a caution people can take when deciding of they want to consume products that have been genetically modified. However, the other of this argument, the people against GMOs, have created such a panic within the rest of the country that many decide to get GMO free products just in case there are negative effects.
Consumers pay whatever the cost is without asking questions such as how fresh and clean it is, where it came from, is it chemical free, how it was manufactured, and many more. The food industry, like all industries, cares more about volume and price rather than quality and health. People are very ignorant about the foods they eat daily, and Berry argues that they need to become more aware. Readers should feel they can eat more responsibly and restore their consciousness of what is involved in eating after reading this
Although GMOs have managed to do their job but here has been reasons as to how the chemicals in foods consumed on a day to day basis are unhealthy and unsuitable to live a long and fulfilling life. Now feel more informed about the GMOs dilemma, considering the insufficient amount of examination that has been accomplished and the accidental contamination of food products which posts an issue to the amount of money countries owe to citizens that have been affected. All in all, as of right now GMOs should be the item to think twice about when purchasing it at a local grocery
Genetically modified foods have been receiving a lot of unjustified hate from the media recently. This is unjustified because GM foods are superior for three main reasons; They produce far more food than un-altered crops, the negative environmental impact is decreased, and the overall quality of GM foods is increased. This should be far more than enough to debunk the myths of GM foods being bad. The consumer, being anyone from an industrial farmer to a small family, can rest assured buying, eating or growing
In the movie Food Inc., company representatives were asked to make known the products that Genetically Modified Organisms are present in, and the food companies were not willing to give up that information. Because people are not allowed to know the full extent of what is in their food the consumer does not have full control of what they are eating. Food during the 1900’s did not have things such as Genetically Modified Organisms added into their food so they did not need to be worried about extra things added to their food. The meat packing industry during the 1900’s was better at making known what was in the food they were producing because they did not have the different things added in like industries do
“Today in the United States, by the simple acts of feeding ourselves, we are unwittingly participating in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings.” Jeremy Seifert certainly knows how to get viewers’ attention, as exemplified by the film blurb describing his 2013 documentary, GMO OMG. The frightening depiction of the food industry is one of many efforts to expose consumers of the twenty-first century to the powerful organizations that profit from national ignorance and lack of critical inquiry and involvement. Seifert effectively harnesses the elements of rhetoric throughout his phenomenal argument against remaining complacent about the food industry’s act of withholding of information about genetically modified organisms from
For years, the health and safety of genetically modified foods have been debated and researched by scientists, but the question still stands: should genetically modified foods be allowed for consumption? The process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. The purpose is to alter the genetic code in plants and animals to make them more productive or resistant to pests or farming techniques. Genetically modified organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, have been a controversial topic of debate for a number of reasons. The ethics behind genetically modified foods come into question due to an abundance of short and long-term effects from the process, many of which are still unknown today.
Instead of growing natural foods, food companies have found an easier, more profitable way of selling food to us: they take these plants and process them into something that tastes better and seems more appealing. And they’re also filled with artificial flavoring, preservatives, and all sorts of synthesized chemicals that make our food sweet but are harmful to us. With these processed foods, we can’t rely on tastes preferences to tell us what to eat, because if we want something sweet, we can eat it any time, which is the exact opposite of why we’ve evolved into liking something sweet. Pollan observes that we’re told to rely on science instead, but this ‘science’ keeps on changing. It seems like the only effect of this ‘science’ is that it helps the food companies make more money.
Most genetic engineering is designed to meet the corporates rather than the consumer’s needs. However, more and more people are growing to believe that GMO products are being produced to be ‘counterfeit freshness’ and some believe that there is no real issue. But are people just being blinded by the science? In its place of providing individuals with beneficial information, obligatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so called Franken foods endangers people’s health. Most major European retailers had to remove GM products from their shelves because they were worried that this kind of technology would drive people away.
Why are genetically modified products harmful? Though genetically modifying crops may increase crop output, there are several health risks that outweigh this positive point. There is currently no requirement by the FDA for GMOs to be labeled. This is a negative, because if you do not want to purchase GMOs, you cannot know for sure what you are purchasing. You must look for foods with a seal stating the food is “Non-GMO Project Verified,” otherwise you may consume genetically modified foods.
Had he gone further into the report he would have found that organic fruits and vegetables are significantly closer in price to conventionally grown ones. We are all paying extra for the fallout from GMOs. This case indeed shows that food labeling issues are not only vital and extremely important today, but also that there is very hard to come to a solution. It would be very easy to label everything, require companies to let consumers know every single ingredient and in turn, hope to increase global health levels. However, it seems that opposing side has very strong arguments and companies are reluctant to sacrifice their profits in order to improve consumers health, which, very interestingly, is sometimes argued would not be achieved by doing so
Therefore, tourism may be defined as the activities, processes and outcomes by the relationship and interaction among the tourist, government, suppliers of the tourism, the host communities and the environment that surrounding the destination which involved in attracting and accommodating of the visitors (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2009). According to Goelner & Ritchie (2009), there are four different perspectives of tourism can be identified from the tourist, business operator who providing goods and services, government of the host destination area and the local community. The first group is the tourists or visitors. They are the group who search for various travel experiences and satisfaction physically and psychologically.